German review faults Maheshwar dam project

By Kalpana Sharma

MUMBAI, JUNE 29. The Maheshwar Hydel Project on the Narmada river
has received a virtual no-confidence vote from an Independent
Review appointed by the German Government. The review was
undertaken following a request by the German engineering giant,
Siemens, for an export credit guarantee to supply turbines for
the project.

Headed by Dr. Richard E. Bissell, executive director, Policy
Division at the U.S. National Research Council, who had earlier
headed the World Bank's Inspection Panel, the report of the
Independent Review has faulted the project on practically all
major aspects of resettlement and rehabilitation. The review was
commissioned by the German Government's Ministry of Economic
Cooperation and Development.

The Bissell report found that the Maheshwar Project, which is one
of the 30 large dams originally planned to be built on the
Narmada River, faced several problems in the area of resettlement
and rehabilitation of people affected by the project. Attention
to this has been drawn by the on-going agitation against the
project in Maheshwar led by the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

The project itself has gone through several changes. Launched in
1975 by the Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), the
project was handed over to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board
(MPEB) in 1989.

The MPEB and the Madhya Pradesh Government, as part of the plan
to involve private investors, brought in S. Kumars into the
project in 1994 and set up the Shree Maheshwar Hydro-electric
Power Corporation Ltd. (SMHPC). This in turn needed foreign
investment. Two German companies that had initially shown
interest pulled out.

This year, the U.S.-based Ogden Corporation has evinced interest
and signed a Memorandum of Intent during the U.S. President, Mr.
Clinton's visit to India in March to take 49 per cent
shareholding in the project.

The report, however, could deter foreign investment as it has
found that even the data on the number of people to be affected
by the project has not been compiled. The last survey undertaken
was in 1993. It came up with the figure of 4,000 oustee
households on the basis of which calculations for investment in
resettlement have been made.

Since then, a new survey has been conducted in just one of 61
villages that will be affected. Here, the number of oustees has
increased from 190 to 300 households. The survey has not included
landless people who will also be affected by the project. The
Bissell committee has therefore concluded that the number of
oustees is likely to be much larger than anticipated in the
project plan.

The Review also points out that no socio-economic survey has been
conducted to assess the extent of the impact. Further, of the
1,172 hectares of irrigated land that are needed, if the figure
of 4,000 oustees is accepted, only 25 hectares have been
acquired.

The accepted resettlement policy requires project authorities to
give a minimum of two hectares of irrigated land to oustees. The
review found that the land that had been acquired was ``not
cultivable without treatment''

An even more fundamental problem was that of ascertaining the
``flood level'', which would then indicate the amount of land
that would eventually be submerged once the project is in place.
Even on this there is no agreement, the committee noted.

The report concludes: ``The approach of the R & R programme to
date has failed to be transparent, participatory or democratic,
and dissent has been handled with police force rather than
communication. The provisions for monitoring and evaluation are
token efforts rather than a serious endeavour to ensure a
comprehensive R & R process''.

Such an adverse conclusion on a project that has been mired in
controversy is unlikely to contribute to investor confidence.